Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The European Union Emissions Trading System.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 6, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring that Federal Prosecutors Meet Discovery Obligations.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pension Poachers: Preventing Fraud and Protecting America's Veterans.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on Sunday, the 20th of May, Taiwan marked the second inauguration of President Ma Ying-jeou. Since its first direct presidential elections in 1996, Taiwan's democracy has emerged as model for the rest of the Asia Pacific region. Over these 16 years, power has changed hands twice between Taiwan's two largest political parties, demonstrating for the world the rapid maturation of its democracy and the commitment of its people to exercising their democratic freedoms. I rise today to congratulate President Ma on his inauguration, and note Taiwan's remarkable history as a kindred democracy, key partner in security and trade, and great friend of the United States. I take deep pride in the partnership between the United States and the people of Taiwan, which is rooted in shared values, shared interests, and a shared vision for a peaceful and prosperous future. For more than 6 decades, the United States has stood with Taiwan as it has transformed into a prosperous free market democracy. Just as the United States has supported Taiwan, so too has Taiwan been a great friend to America. Taiwan is among America's top trading partners. Moreover, time and time again from the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to our continued security cooperation today Taiwan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States. I am deeply grateful to the people of Taiwan for their contributions to our shared security and prosperity. Looking to the future, I hope and believe that President Ma's second inauguration will mark another milestone in the deepening relationship between the United States and Taiwan. For all of our progress, we still have a big agenda ahead. It is past time for us to remove the barriers to trade between the U.S. and Taiwan and negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan. We must also ensure that the people of Taiwan are secure, so they can continue to decide their future for themselves. That, in turn, means the United States should take common-sense steps to deepen our security ties with Taiwan and support Taiwan in acquiring the weapons it needs and has requested. As the United States focuses increasingly on the Asia-Pacific region, the Obama Administration must do more to make Taiwan an integral part of our broader strategy to uphold the balance of power in this critical part of the world as a way to maintain peace. In closing, I again congratulate President Ma on his inauguration and thank Taiwan's people for their decades of friendship.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving on having been named the Bronze Award winner for excellence in communications by the 2012 Wilmer Shields Rich Awards Program. This award, which is given out by the National Council on Foundations, recognizes those organizations that develop top-notch communications plans to increase attention and support for nonprofit foundations and corporate giving programs. Increasing public awareness of these organizations helps them to better serve the community. The Harford Foundation for Public Giving received this honor for its 2010 annual report, ``Creating Brighter Futures.'' This report focused on the foundation's 25-year, $30 million initiative to improve school readiness and success in early grades for Hartford children. The award--one of 12 awarded out of 140 entries in 4 categories--was presented during the Council on Foundations Annual Conference, April 29 to May 1, in Los Angeles. Of course, this award did not come as a surprise to me, considering all the great work the foundation has done in the Hartford region. Founded in 1925, the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving is the community foundation for Hartford and 28 other towns in Connecticut's capital region. Devoted to enhancing the quality of life in the region, the foundation provides grants and other support to a broad range of nonprofit organizations, helps donors make effective charitable giving decisions, and brings people together to discuss important community issues. The foundation has awarded $532 million since opening its doors in 1925 in grants in the areas of arts and culture, children and youth, education, health, housing and economic development, and family and social services. I am proud to honor the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving on having been named the Bronze Award winner for excellence in communications by the 2012 Wilmer Shields Rich Awards Program. I thank Linda Kelly, the foundation's president and CEO, and everyone else involved in the foundation for all they have done for the people of the Hartford region.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is a classic moment-- unfortunately, too typical--where we all agree on the goal, but we want to pass another tier of sanctions against the Iranians to deter them from developing nuclear weapons. Our goal has been to get this done before the P5+1--five permanent members of the Security Council of the U.N., plus Germany--meet again with Iran in Baghdad this time, which is next Tuesday. I understand the frustration of the majority leader. First, nobody has been more consistent and steadfast and sincere in their effort than the majority leader to have this body make very clear to everybody in the world--particularly the Iranians--that we will not accept them becoming a nuclear power, and we are prepared to use economic sanctions and, if necessary, certainly now the credible threat of force. I also know the majority leader has been pushed and pulled back and forth over the last several weeks to get to a point where we can get this done before May 23. So I understand his frustration at this moment. I hear my Republican colleagues, and I have looked at the language they are concerned about. They are concerned that in listing the economic sanctions as one way that can be used to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and not listing the credible threat, the option of military force, as President Obama and others have said, that somehow we are sending a message of weakness. Frankly, my original hope was that the more important thing to do is to get this done and passed in the Senate by next Tuesday when all parties come to Baghdad. But the difference is not only small, it is nonexistent. We all agree we ought to try the sanctions, that we ought to make them tough, that they ought not be watered down before the Iranians agree to stop their nuclear weapons program. And we all agree we have to have the credible threat of force being used against the Iranian nuclear program if there is any real hope of the sanctions working. I know the majority leader has to leave the Senate floor. Ideally, I wish we could agree on that sentence and get it done and passed today by consent, if we can. If we can't, I hope we can do it by Monday so we do send a message of unity, which we have, but the words, the procedures, the mood is standing in the way of us sending a unified message from the Senate to the rest of the world, and particularly to the Islamic Republic of Iran in Tehran, that we mean business. Right now we are not speaking with one voice. I appeal to my colleagues. Let us step back, take a breath. Can we do it this afternoon? Maybe. I hope so. If we can't, let us get it done over the weekend and adopt it by Monday. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to respond to my friend from Tennessee. I am actually very glad he raises the question, because I know at least one other Member of the Senate has similar concerns. The interpretation of my friend from Tennessee of our intention in this resolution is exactly right, which is that there is nothing in this resolution that is intended to be an authorization for the use of military force in Iran by the President or government, military, of the United States of America. This resolution's main focus is to essentially back up with a congressional statement the position President Obama has articulated; that no matter what happens, containment of a nuclear Iran is not an acceptable policy from the point of view of the security of the United States; that our policy is to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. That is exactly why clause 6 was put in there, to say we do not accept containment; that our policy is prevention of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. But I want to be clear there is nothing in that language that Senator Graham or I or Senator Casey see as the authorization of the use of military force. If at any point circumstances in Iran require, in the judgment of the Commander in Chief, military action, then I expect-- particularly if it lasts a period of time that would bring it within the purview of the war powers understandings--the President would come to Congress seeking explicit authorization for the use of military force. This resolution supports the negotiations going on now between the P5+1 and Iran. It expresses our hope that it succeed so that the option of military force is not necessary. It is very significant in that it essentially says--and I will paraphrase it--we ought not to dial down the economic sanctions against Iran just because they have come to the table and maybe accepted one part of what we want them to do. They have got to show they have made a commitment for a verifiable end of their nuclear weapons program before we lift the economic sanctions. That is the real goal. And if they do not, they will face our policy of prevention, not containment. But this is not the authorization of the use of military force. I thank my friend from Tennessee for raising the question and giving us the opportunity to respond, and I hope it reassures anyone else in the Senate who may have had that same concern. With that, I yield for my friend from South Carolina.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is very generous of my friend.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Alabama. I have been listening to some of the statements that are being made. They are quite sincere. They are quite interesting. But I am afraid, in the end, they are not going to signify very much except good intentions. We have ourselves in a position here where we all know the country has a terrible problem. We are spending a lot more than we are bringing in. The simplest way to explain it is, the last time I looked--I think I am still close on this--revenues of the Federal Government are about 15 or 16 percent of gross domestic product and the spending of the Federal Government is about 25 percent of gross domestic product. There you have a yawning, enormous deficit, which adds up now to a long-term debt of over $15 trillion. We cannot go on like this and be a great country. We cannot go on like this and have any hope of economic recovery. I happen to agree--I should say in gratitude for the extra time Senator Sessions has given me--I happen to agree with the last thing he said. I think--and I am not alone; I think some people on both sides feel this--the best thing we can do for our economy and economic growth is to adopt a bipartisan long-term program that will reduce and hopefully eliminate our debt. Why? Because it will restore confidence in the American economy. We all know that jobs do not come from government. They should not come from government or in government. Jobs that people want, need, come from the private sector. The last time I looked, the private sector--American business--was sitting on somewhere between $2 trillion and $3 trillion of liquid assets that they are not spending. Why aren't they spending it? They have very little confidence in the future--not just confidence about how the economy is going to be, but what we are going to do, what the government is going to do. I think if we adopted a long-term bipartisan debt reduction program that gave them some sense of security about what taxes and spending policies were going to do for some years ahead, they would start to invest that $2 trillion to $3 trillion again, and that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs that people desperately need, who are trying so hard to get back to work. Look, basically we know what we have to do to make this happen. To state it bluntly, it has to be a combination of tax reform and entitlement reform. We have to raise revenues so they get back up to 18, 19, 20 percent and we have to bring spending down--most of the spending increases are coming from entitlements--to about 18 or 19 percent of GDP so we can be in balance. It is not very mysterious how we are going to do this. But the political will is not there now to make those tough decisions. Today is a classic moment. We have these budget resolutions that are before us as a matter of privilege. They are privileged matters. I have wanted to vote to proceed to some of them just to get on the subject matter, hoping that maybe the door would be opened for direction to various committees to come back with long-term solutions, as I have talked about. We all know the Bowles-Simpson model is the one we are going to eventually get to. The question is, how close do we get to the fiscal cliff--or has our country gone over the cliff, falling down--and, finally, we rush in here and in a panic rescue it with something like Simpson-Bowles? The closest Senate proposal that would do what we need to do is the one my friend from North Dakota has tabled in the Budget Committee. I wish we could vote on it. I do not know how many votes we would get, but I wish we could at least start the process. I know everybody says we are going to come back after the election and there is going to be a burst of courage, I guess because the election is over, and we are going to do the Simpson-Bowles tax reform and entitlement reform. What I am sort of hearing in the wind around here is, do not count on it. I hope so. Senator Conrad and I, it is going to be our last couple of months on this particular stage. There is nothing I know he would like more to be part of, and I can tell you nothing I would like more to be part of, than doing a bipartisan, long- term debt reduction program. But I am fearful that it is asking an awful lot of the system in a short period of time, and the tendency will be to protect us from falling off the cliff by extending everything that is going to expire at the end of the year: stopping the sequestering, stopping the end of the Bush tax cuts. I hope I am wrong. I know there are some bipartisan groups that I have been part of that are working to get ready for that point. That is important work, because it cannot spring out of nowhere. But our country's future is at stake, the future of the greatest economy in the history of the world, because of our irresponsibility is the only thing I can say, and we have been part of it. I take blame for part of it. We are not doing what the country needs us to do. I am going to vote against the motions to proceed, because each of them, the proposals before us do not achieve anything near what we need to do in terms of a balance--entitlement reform, tax reform. I do want to say one other thing which I hope we can get to soon. To say the obvious, but sometimes it is important to say it, the existing budget process has broken down. It does not work. It is not related to the reality of the economic or political times we are in. So the budget process does not work. Let me cite a couple of statistics. Not since early in 2009 has the Congress managed to actually pass a real annual budget resolution. I know the Budget Control Act does some of the things a budget resolution would do, but not all of them, and it does not do what the Budget Reform Act of 1974 called on us to do. Listen to this. Only four times in the last 35 years--four times in 35 years--have the appropriations bills been completed prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year. What business or what other government entity could operate like that? The last time Congress successfully passed all of the appropriations bills prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year was 1996. We know it because we have been here. Over and over again, Congress slides from one temporary short-term appropriations bill to the next, months into the fiscal year, until we finally throw it into one big hodgepodge, which is not responsible government, and a lot gets hidden in it. I want to raise the question--I know my friends on the Budget Committee have thought about it. I sense my time is up. I wonder whether we need a commission to take a look in a short period of time, 6 months, at the budget process we are following now and make recommendations for a new process that will work. Maybe it is a lack of political will and an inability to take on these tough issues now, but maybe it is the process, and maybe that is something sooner than later we can work together on. I thank Senators Conrad and Sessions for allowing me to speak as long as I was able to. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was hoping for 4 \1/4\ minutes. OK. I will do my best.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is broad and diverse. The men and women of DHS protect our borders and modes of transportation; they guard our waterways; they protect U.S. and foreign leaders; they prepare for and respond to disasters; they manage our immigration process; and, they defend us against cyber attack. DHS employees provide selfless service to their nation and they do so with honor and distinction under an ever-present threat. With National Police Week 2012 commencing, I would like to pay tribute to the Department of Homeland Security's agents, officers, and military personnel who lost their lives in the service of our Nation. Fifty-five courageous men and women of DHS have died in the line of duty since the Department's inception in 2003. We owe them more than a tribute on this day, but our gratitude begins with that. They are: Lorenzo R. Gomez, Immigration Enforcement Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, El Paso, Texas, End of Watch: November 8, 2003. James P. Epling, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: December 16, 2003. Nathan B. Bruckenthal, Damage Controlman Third Class (E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, Iraq, End of Watch: April 24, 2004. Travis W. Attaway, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Harlingen, Texas, End of Watch: September 19, 2004. Jeremy M. Wilson, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Harlingen, Texas, End of Watch: September 19, 2004. Philip C. Lebid, Special Agent, U.S. Secret Service, Tampa, Florida, End of Watch: November 22, 2004. George B. DeBates, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Casa Grande, Arizona, End of Watch: December 19, 2004. David G. Wilhelm, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Atlanta, Georgia, End of Watch: March 11, 2005. Christopher J. Smith, Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service, Atlanta, Georgia, End of Watch: March 25, 2005. Nicholas D. Greenig, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Tucson, Arizona, End of Watch: March 14, 2006. Jessica E. Hill, Lieutenant (O 3), U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Ocean, End of Watch: August 17, 2006. Steven Duque, Boatswain's Mate Second Class (E 5), U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Ocean, End of Watch: August 17, 2006. David N. Webb, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ajo, Arizona, End of Watch: November 3, 2006. Ramon Nevarez, Jr., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Lordsburg, New Mexico, End of Watch: March 15, 2007. David J. Tourscher, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Lordsburg, New Mexico, End of Watch: March 16, 2007. Ronald A. Gill, Jr., Port Security Specialist Third Class, U.S. Coast Guard Reserve, Puget Sound, Washington, End of Watch: March 25, 2007. Clinton B. Thrasher, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, McAllen, Texas, End of Watch: April 25, 2007. Richard Goldstein, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Indio, California, End of Watch: May 11, 2007. Robert F. Smith, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, El Paso, Texas, End of Watch: May 22, 2007. Eric N. Cabral, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Boulevard, California, End of Watch: July 26, 2007. Julio E. Baray, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, El Paso, Texas, End of Watch: September 24, 2007. Luis Aguilar, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: January 19, 2008. Jarod C. Dittman, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, San Diego, California, End of Watch: March 30, 2008. Thomas G. Nelson, Captain (O 6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008. Andrew C. Wischmeier, Lieutenant Commander (O 4), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008. David L. Skimin, Aviation Survival Technician First Class (E 6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008. Joshua W. Nichols, Aviation Maintenance Technician First Class (E 6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008. Nathaniel A. Afolayan, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Artesia, New Mexico, End of Watch: May 1, 2009. Cruz C. McGuire, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Del Rio, Texas, End of Watch: May 21, 2009. Robert W. Rosas, Jr., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Campo, California, End of Watch: July 23, 2009. Che J. Barnes, Lieutenant Commander (O 4), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009. Adam W. Bryant, Lieutenant (O 3), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009. John F. Seidman, Aviation Maintenance Technician Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009. Carl P. Grigonis, Avionics Electrical Technician Second Class (E 5), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009. Monica L. Beacham, Avionics Electrical Technician Second Class (E 5), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009. Danny R. Kreder, Jr., Aviation Maintenance Technician Third Class (E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009. Jason S. Moletzsky, Aviation Maintenance Technician Third Class (E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009. Mark F. Van Doren, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Falfurrias, Texas, End of Watch: May 24, 2010. Sean D. Krueger, Lieutenant (O 3), U.S. Coast Guard, La Push, Washington, End of Watch: July 7, 2010. Adam C. Hoke, Aviation Maintenance Technician First Class (E 6), U.S. Coast Guard, La Push, Washington, End of Watch: July 7, 2010. Brett M. Banks, Aviation Maintenance Technician Second Class (E 5), U.S. Coast Guard, La Push, Washington, End of Watch: July 7, 2010. Charles F. Collins II, CBP Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Anchorage, Alaska, End of Watch: August 15, 2010. Michael V. Gallagher, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Casa Grande, Arizona, End of Watch: September 2, 2010. John R. Zykas, CBP Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, San Diego, California, End of Watch: September 8, 2010. Shaun M. Lin, Maritime Enforcement Specialist Third Class (E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, Portsmouth, Virginia, End of Watch: October 13, 2010. Brian A. Terry, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Naco Cochise, Arizona, End of Watch: December 15, 2010. Jaime J. Zapata, Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mexico City, Mexico, End of Watch: February 15, 2011. Hector R. Clark, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: May 12, 2011. Eduardo Rojas, Jr., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: May 12, 2011. Dale T. Taylor, Lieutenant Commander (O 4), U.S. Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28, 2012. Thomas J. Cameron, Lieutenant Junior Grade (O 2), U.S. Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28, 2012. Fernando Jorge, Aviation Survival Technician (E 7), U.S. Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28, 2012. Andrew W. Knight, Avionics Electrical Technician (E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28, 2012. James A. Hopkins, Electronics Technician (E 6), U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska, End of Watch: April 12, 2012. Richard W. Belisle, Civilian Employee (WG 8), Chief Boatswain's Mate (E 7), Retired, U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska, End of Watch: April 12, 2012.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, next on the list is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2026.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2039

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2039.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Warner amendment No. 2071, with a modification that is at the desk, and I ask that it to be considered in the original order of the previous agreement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I support the amendment, as modified, and urge its adoption by voice vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, next on the list is Senator Schumer's amendment No. 2050.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, colleagues, we have completed all the amendments on the bill and we are ready to vote on final passage.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Next is Senator DeMint's amendment No. 2046. Amendment No. 2046

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, next we have Senator McCaskill's amendment No. 2030. Amendment No. 2030